To take full advantage of all features you need to login or register. Registration is completely free and takes only a few seconds.

Rumor Mill: Pep-Up an Otherwise Boring Day

It has been a nonexistant slow news week this week (we'll be making our own news shortly though), so I thought I'd fire-up the old rumor mill and give you all something to argue about in the forums. This time, fresh in from the VR Zone, we have some speculation on a future Clawhammer from AMD. Since it's in their news, it'll eventually be bumped off the bottom, so I'll post the whole thing:

For next year, AMD will first position ClawHammer for Performance Desktop segment and will move to Low Cost/Value Desktop segment in the Year 2004. There is a good possibility that AMD will have a new revised version of the ClawHammer when it is positioned for low cost/value segment for the Year 2004. The current architecture of the ClawHammer makes it difficult for Unified Memory Architecture (UMA) to be implemented because of the integrated memory controller on the CPU due to delay in data read from the frame buffer to the RAMDAC. Therefore in order to solve the problem, AMD need to have a second generation Hammer with UMA implementation in place. In regards to Intel's Hyper Threading technology for their Prescott processors next year, AMD will be observing whether Hyper-Threading will really help in parallelism and will adopt if it is effective. Also there is a chance for Hammer to go dual cores (2 CPU cores in one die) at 65-nm process in 2005-06.

It's fun to speculate, but considering the first Clawhammer hasn't seen the retail shelf yet, I wouldn't count my chickens.

Comment

Originally posted by valis The PPro originally tried to ditch 16bit legacy code as well. It went over about as well as the Itanium has

the pentium pro's sold fine, in fact they were produced up until the p2 xeon's were introduced in late 1998.

They were not aimed at the desktop and while not optimized for 16 bit code, they did just fine. And they had all the x86 legacy crap in them still

just because a similiarly clocked pentium performed better in a 16 bit application in windows 95 or dos doesnt mean it was the better than the pentium pro.

Under a 32bit operating system like winnt or linux, the pentium got smoked all around. Better FPU and integer unit, on board cache (up to a MEG) running at clock speed (vs the 66 mhz crap on motherboard cache of the p5) which totally crippled those socket 7 platforms

its all speculation tho, i think we have beat this dead horse enough lately

Comment

#15951 Posted on: 06/14/2002 07:01 PM
Proccessor architecture is really moving along .... even if in just theory right now. I'd like to see some real innovation in mainboards and chipsets myself.

A new slot for a daughter board. The daughter boards could have most of your built-in components such as sound,video,LAN,system memory,etc... as individually upgradable modules. Only the daughter board would physically interface with the mainboard.Tyan i840|2x1000|1GB PC800 RDRAM|4xQuantum 10kII|VisionTek X-6964|TBSC|Plextor 40max|S&F Mach 12|iiyama VM pro 501 & VM pro 502|mod'ed Toshiba Magnia 3010 chassis|600W PSU

Comment

spikegifted
I do what?

Posts: 6131
Joined: 2000-07-24

#15952 Posted on: 06/14/2002 07:18 PM
can someone tell me when was intel's first 32bit cpu was introduced? and when was the first office/consumer level 32bit operating system produced?spikegifted.net
"At the very beginning of the 19th century chemists generally thought that compounds from living organisms were too complicated in structure to be capable of artificial synthesis from non-living things, and that a 'vital force' or vitalism conferred the characteristics of living beings on this form of matter." Well, how wrong were they? So much for dogma...

Comment

LarryCat
Registered User

Posts: 1
Joined: 2001-06-07

#15953 Posted on: 06/14/2002 08:18 PM
I have a friend that works on some of the hardware associated with Hammer. He has been telling me for almost a year and a half now that they wanted to go dual core, using a pumped up HT link between the two procs, which would still preserve their current model. Then simply tile the cores, adding HT links as needed, for memory or perhiph access.
He said from the machines he has seen those benches look accurate - they use them to play CS.

Merow

Comment

nipster
NOT a WarMonger

Posts: 1839
Joined: 2001-09-12

#15954 Posted on: 06/14/2002 08:34 PM

Originally posted by spikegifted can someone tell me when was intel's first 32bit cpu was introduced?

intel 386, um... like 1986 or so, im really not sure the date

and when was the first office/consumer level 32bit operating system produced?

First consumer level 32 bit GUI based OS was IBM OS/2 in around 1990-91
First MS 32 bit OS was windows NT 3.1 in around 1992
First 32 bit x86 OS would have been some unix. Perhaps SunOS or SCO unixware

Comment

Originally posted by nipster intel 386, um... like 1986 or so... First MS 32 bit OS was windows NT 3.1 in around 1992

thanks, nipster... i think i've a point to make here...

the first 32bit capable x86 cpu was introduced back in 1986 or there about and the first ms 32bit os appeared in 1992 and that wasn't even consumer level... the first hybrid 16/32bit consumer os was win95 :mad: and first true 32bit consumer os was win xp home edition! :rolleyes: - introduced last year (2001) - a full 15 years after the humble 386 came to the market!!

by applying the same delay experienced in the move from 16bit os to 32bit os... if amd and intel get their 64bit processors into the market 4q 2002, we are not going to see a *consumer level* 64bit os until, oh, 2017!! :mad:spikegifted.net
"At the very beginning of the 19th century chemists generally thought that compounds from living organisms were too complicated in structure to be capable of artificial synthesis from non-living things, and that a 'vital force' or vitalism conferred the characteristics of living beings on this form of matter." Well, how wrong were they? So much for dogma...

Comment

jnw
Registered User

Posts: 112
Joined: 2001-09-22

#15957 Posted on: 06/17/2002 11:55 PM

Originally posted by spikegifted by applying the same delay experienced in the move from 16bit os to 32bit os... if amd and intel get their 64bit processors into the market 4q 2002, we are not going to see a *consumer level* 64bit os until, oh, 2017!! :mad:

That's for a Microsoft OS. A 64bit linux should be out in 2003. (And Linux can certainly be called a "consumer level" OS, with Walmart selling $300 systems using a version of it.)

Comment

spikegifted
I do what?

Posts: 6131
Joined: 2000-07-24

#15958 Posted on: 06/18/2002 05:29 PM

Originally posted by jnw (And Linux can certainly be called a "consumer level" OS, with Walmart selling $300 systems using a version of it.)

well, no offense to linux (i like linux also... i've a copy of mandrake 8.2 dual booting in one of my duallies! ), but i don't think the level of *consumer level* application support for linux (i'd have a tough time convincing my grandma to use star office instead of word! and telling her i don't want to pay the licence fee is just a waste of time... :rolleyes: ) is just not at the same level as for a ms os... :mad:

if i pick up one of those rigs with linux installed, add a copy of star office and some other little apps/utilities and try and get any member of my family to use it, they'll simply flat refuse!! they'll complain (actually, they've complained to me already! ) that star office doesn't 'look' like ms office and they prefer ie over netscape... unfortunately ms's dominance on the desktop has brainwashed a whole generation of pc users!! :mad:spikegifted.net
"At the very beginning of the 19th century chemists generally thought that compounds from living organisms were too complicated in structure to be capable of artificial synthesis from non-living things, and that a 'vital force' or vitalism conferred the characteristics of living beings on this form of matter." Well, how wrong were they? So much for dogma...

Comment

todder
Unregistered User

Posts: 2058
Joined: 2002-01-30

#15959 Posted on: 06/18/2002 10:31 PM
I need some education, I though 2000 pro was first 32bit os what kind of 16 bit does it have not to be concidered true 32Bit
[COLOR="Blue"]". . . I think a general Government [is] necessary for us, and there is no form of government but what may be a blessing to the people, if well administered; and I believe, farther, that this [The Constitution] is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic government, being incapable of any other. "
-Benjamin Franklin
[/COLOR]

Comment

spikegifted
I do what?

Posts: 6131
Joined: 2000-07-24

#15960 Posted on: 06/18/2002 10:36 PM

Originally posted by todder I need some education, I though 2000 pro was first 32bit os what kind of 16 bit does it have not to be concidered true 32Bit

well, win2k is a true 32bit os, being based on the winnt kernel... however, win2k wasn't marketed a *consumer os* if you've bought a dell or gateway at the time for your little brother to mess around with, you would've gotten the all singing, all dancing pile of junk win me!! :mad: which, be the way, is just a jazzed up version of win9x - ie. a 16/32bit hybrid os... spikegifted.net
"At the very beginning of the 19th century chemists generally thought that compounds from living organisms were too complicated in structure to be capable of artificial synthesis from non-living things, and that a 'vital force' or vitalism conferred the characteristics of living beings on this form of matter." Well, how wrong were they? So much for dogma...

Comment

Murdock
Captain

Posts: 1370
Joined: 2001-07-02

#15961 Posted on: 06/18/2002 10:40 PM
It may very well be 2017 before Microsoft releases Windows 17.0 Home Edition that supports 64 bit instructions. However, as far as the folks around here go, I'd say somewhere around 2/3 to 3/4 of us are using some NT or unix based OS, so the "consumer level" doesn't really apply to us. My understanding is Microsoft is already working on a 64bit version of XP and .NET Server, and I remember reading somewhere that a 64 bit version of Linux is on the way so that should handle the majority of the people here.

Granted, I'd love to see MS retrofit 2000 with 64 bit instructions, but alas it's just a dream. Come to think of it.. that may be MS's next strategy to force an upgrade on folks.The pathetic state of our government will never change unless we stop electing politicians and start electing public servants.
Remember: There was once a time when the term "politician" had a very negative connotation.

Comment

todder
Unregistered User

Posts: 2058
Joined: 2002-01-30

#15962 Posted on: 06/18/2002 11:23 PM
thanks for the clarification.

BTW I almost always convince my customers to get Win 2000 or xp pro
[COLOR="Blue"]". . . I think a general Government [is] necessary for us, and there is no form of government but what may be a blessing to the people, if well administered; and I believe, farther, that this [The Constitution] is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic government, being incapable of any other. "
-Benjamin Franklin
[/COLOR]